The Objective Individual Combat Weapon Advanced Technology Demonstration (ATD) provides an enhanced capability for the 21st century infantryman, with the potential to selectively replace the M16 rifle, M203 grenade launcher, and M4 carbine. The fire control system (FCS), using a laser range finder, pinpoints the precise target range at which the HE round will burst and relays this information to the 20mm ammunition fuzing system. Fragments from the bursting munition will defeat PASGT armor. The sighting system provides full 24-hour capability by employing uncooled IR sensor technology for night vision.

Why are so many people/orginazations trying to replace the M-16
M4? What cant these rifles do that we want them to?

The biggest feture on the OICW it the "SMART" 20mm grenade launcher. And on the bottom is a gun, (I wouldnt call it a rifle) that shoots 5.56mm bullets. (I think it's an 11" barrel)

First off what optics are on the OICW that we already cant attach and remove from the M4? Also why not just intergrate the 20mm grenade launcher on the bottom of an M16 M4 if the mission warented one?

From my understanding the 20 MM grenades are programable to explode at a given range. This is a good thing but why change an entire weapon for this advantage? Also the OICW weighs in at a whooping 12 lbs!!! :eek:

The OICW defenetly has some awsome technology and tactical fetures on it. But in my opinion it is a greande launcher with a "so called rifle" on it. NOT a "rifle"with a grenade launcher. I think the technoligy from the OICW should be intergrated into the "Land Warrior" system useing M4 carbines. That way, a soldier can remove and attach gun sights according to the mission. An infantry soldier needs to be mobile and have options on the battle feild. "Shoot, Move and Communicate".

So what do you think? DO you have any more information on the OICW?

Duke of Lawnchair

September 5, 2002, 06:58 PM

OICW is in MY opinion a great test bed. As far as a weapon, I'm not all that sure because I won't be the one responsible for lugging it around. However, I think it would be a shame if the program were dumped all together as I'm sure that a lot can be learned from the OICW.

Personally, I don't care if the M16 is replaced or not. However, I feel that should not be the reason to dismiss a little T&E. Build it, run it and then learn from it. If need be, develop it even further.

Jim

ronin308

September 5, 2002, 08:19 PM

There is no magic sword. The M4 will not help people shoot better, and the OICW damn sure will not help people shoot better. Frankly, I'd rather see the military spend taxpayers dollars on TRAINING instead of gadgetry.

BTW- Not to flame but Shure is a brand of microphone, the correct spelling you're looking for is "sure" ;)

C.R.Sam

September 5, 2002, 09:04 PM

Shure = microphones etc.
shure = past tense of shear.:D

Sam

Correia

September 5, 2002, 10:35 PM

Do a search for OICW, and put in MAD DOG as the poster. He had the best and most well reasoned post about the OICW I have ever read. And that was from somebody with an engineering background who works in the gun industry.

I think it is a ridiculous piece of crap, designed by admin pouges.

The M16 will eventually be replaced, just like we replaced the M14, Garand, Springfield, etc.

twoblink

September 6, 2002, 01:28 AM

I'm one of the "anti-M16's" people...

I look at it from a design point of view, and I hate the gun. Bad design..

If they would do something as simple as put a positive bite on the bolt charging handle, the stupid battery lock button aka charge button wouldn't have to be there... 9 parts saved. the fact that I have to move my face when I rack it, is annoying, it [email protected] where it eats, and the spring is in the buttstock, and with tube buttstocks, that means the gun is very vulnerable to FtF because of torquing on the buttstock.. All that tells me, redesign, a LONG time ago...

I will sit back, and await the flames...

Coronach

September 6, 2002, 07:05 AM

Is the OICW being touted as a replacement for the M16/M4 system, or as a weapon used by a few to supplement the capabilities of a squad (kinda like a SAW)?

Most of the objections I've heard from TFL centered upon the insanity of trying to spend that much money to give every soldier a heavy, fragile pig to lug around. Most of the literature I've read seemed to indicate that they have no plans to issue it as a general replacement for the M16.

I admit I have no idea what they plan to do, but I agree with the idea that using the OICW as the standard rifle is pretty brainless.

Mike

BigD

September 6, 2002, 08:22 AM

I think it is a ridiculous piece of crap, designed by admin pouges.

I couldn't have said it better myself. Designed by people who have never spent a day, much less carried a weapon, in combat.

MLC

September 6, 2002, 02:17 PM

FWIW
The military is allegedly looking onto the Hk 69
as a replacement for the M203,
The OICW was meant to replace the M16/M203
not the M16 altogether.
In my opinion giving this behemoth to a soldier to tote around is a bit ludicrous. Adding insult to injury is the 10" barreled carbine he is left with to fight if the system fails.
This laucher is mountable on the M16.
http://www.hkpro.com/ag36spain.jpg
These are US troops in Afghanistan from Time magazine in March.
http://community.webshots.com/rs1/8/3/33/33680333pobwaN_ph.jpg
Those are HK 69's.

ronin308

September 6, 2002, 04:56 PM

HKLVR- Not to nitpick but I don't think that's a US soldier ;)

M4A3

September 6, 2002, 06:47 PM

I think you all know whare I stand on the subject. From a combat stand point, what more could you ask for? The M16\M4 carbine is light weight, accurate, simple to maintain, easy for an avrage soldier to shoot and extremly deadly with in the 5.56 fragmintation range. Also with the new RAS and other front grips a soldier can atach many differnt optics to the rifle depending on the mission.

Lets also look the the 5.56mm cartrage that the M16\M4 shoots.
I have heard so many people say that we should go to a larger cal. rifle like the 7.62X51 or .308 WIN. And I have even heard some people say, and talk about in other forums that we should give our soldiers the AK-47\7.62X39.

WHY I ask... If you look at wound balistics that can be found all over the web, you will see that the 5.56X54mm causes more tramatic wounds to flesh with in it's fragmintation range or 2500 fps+ than the 7.62X51, 7.62X39 and even 5.45X39. The area it lacks in is long range shots. But studies show and maby some of you VETS can agree, soldiers generaly cant see or wont shoot at any thing further than 300M or so. (maby somone will enlighten me on the subject). Also the 5.56 has alot less recoil than the 7.62, both X51 and X39.

The high vol. 5.56 also likes to chew up personell armor and light armor on vehicles. For example, that same day that the picture of me at the range was taken, I was shooting at a 1/2" thick steel plate @70 yards with M1A2 South African ammo...The S**T just about went through, :eek: I couldnt beleve it!! It made me even a bigger beliver in the 5.56. If I was shooting M855 that day it probibly would have went through with ease. Agen... WHY I ask... why change to a differt cartrage? Sombody tell me ONE problem with the 5.56... :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

JIH

September 6, 2002, 08:17 PM

Kinda odd, considering that there's been rumors of people (Marines) wanting to go back to simpler weapons to replace the M16/M203 combo, like the M79 Blooper...

swampgator

September 6, 2002, 08:28 PM

as posted by SR_15_M4:
The high vol. 5.56 also likes to chew up personell armor and light armor on vehicles. For example, that same day that the picture of me at the range was taken, I was shooting at a 1/2" thick steel plate @70 yards with M1A2 South African ammo...The S**T just about went through, I couldnt beleve it!! It made me even a bigger beliver in the 5.56. If I was shooting M855 that day it probibly would have went through with ease. Agen... WHY I ask... why change to a differt cartrage? Sombody tell me ONE problem with the 5.56...

Steel plate is not armor plate. Most rifles rounds will defeat personal armor. 5.56mm serves a purpose but everything you posted above can be duplicated with a .30-30 Winchester round.

As for replacing the M-16/M-4, use all the money spent every year for weapons R&D for items such as the OICW and buy ammo. Lots and lots of ammo. Then BRM the mess (for you, Art :D!) out of all the troops.

M4A3

September 6, 2002, 09:28 PM

Steel plate is not armor plate. Most rifles rounds will defeat personal armor. 5.56mm serves a purpose but everything you posted above can be duplicated with a .30-30 Winchester round.

Heh it just so happens that I have a 30-30. I'll bet that the .30-30 doesn't penitrate as far as the M4 did. The next time I go to the range I'll bring the 30-30 and the same steel plate. Take a photo and post it in this forum.

An M4 also has 1/2 the recoil that the 30/30 would.

swampgator 5.56X45mm has alot more power than you think.

Here is a photo of the 1/2" steel plate!!:eek:

Ceol Mhor

September 6, 2002, 11:23 PM

A .357 Magnum may sound powerful, but it's truly nowhere near rifle cartridges in kinetic energy. Saying that a .223 makes a deeper hole in steel than a .357 is nothing out of the ordinary.

But studies show and maby some of you VETS can agree, soldiers generaly cant see or wont shoot at any thing further than 300M or so.
Lol! Can't see targets at >300 yards? 40% of NRA high-power matches (which are shot with ARs, M1s, or M1As) are at 600 yards! And what troops can see, they can shoot at - assuming their weapon is effective at that range. I just finished reading about a battle in the 1880/1 First Boer War which was won by the Boers due in part to the one really effecive British officer being shot in the spine from 900 yards out (with an early Mauser, BTW).

STLRN

September 7, 2002, 12:00 AM

Lol! Can't see targets at >300 yards? 40% of NRA high-power matches (which are shot with ARs, M1s, or M1As) are at 600 yards! And what troops can see, they can shoot at - assuming their weapon is effective at that range. I just finished reading about a battle in the 1880/1 First Boer War which was won by the Boers due in part to the one really effecive British officer being shot in the spine from 900 yards out (with an early Mauser, BTW).

Comparing black targets on a white background of the KD type course to what you see on a battlefield is ridiculous, are you joking?

The tactics used by the Brits in the Boer war and about everyone in the early parts of WWI are not the same tactical mind set we use today. The first thing the Brits wore bright colors (only the French and the many lesser nations still had this practice in the beginning of WWI, everyone went to Subdued uniforms after the first months). The second thing the Brits had working against them was they practiced what military theorist call closed order battle formations, that were really obsolete with the advent of rifled weapons, in which they would pack themselves together in close formations to maximize their fire power. But since in most cases they could not see the Boars, who were wearing subdued clothing they could not shoot back with their Lee Rifles or machine guns. Less than a generation later many of these same weapons were effectively engaging the enemy (this time Germans) at upwards of 2000ms at Mons because Germans attacked in close order formations. The Germans discontinued this practice when they went to open order tactics with the introduction of "Storm Trooper" in 1915-16. By the end of WWI almost everyone used the same philosophy and the average engagement distance for a solider was down under 300 m's.

M4A3

September 7, 2002, 12:56 AM

Thank you STLRN. Thank you for sheding som light on exactly what I was trying to say. :)

Comparing black targets on a white background of the KD type course to what you see on a battlefield is ridiculous, are you joking?
This here is the MONEY shot comment says it all.

O, by the way. Did you see the steel plate?

Redlg155

September 7, 2002, 01:07 AM

SR_15_M4,

You are making some strong statements supporting the M16 series rifle, specifically the M4 and the 5.56 cartridge. I'm just curious, do you have any experience...meaning Military whether peacetime or combat that would support your theories or do you make your assumptions purely based upon "civilian" experience? Mine? I have my DD214. Was I special Ops? No. Just Artillery 9 Years. Did I go to the Desert? Yes. Saudi/ Iraq from Aug to March. So I do know a little about the M16 series, but not much about the M4 because they weren't widely available when I got out in 96. Back then our maintanence guys still carried "grease guns" for SMGs.

Please do not take this as a personal attack, because it isn't, but If you did carry an M16, particularily in the desert, you would know just how much dust and sand could wreck havoc on the weapon. During qualifications it is rare when you don't have a soldier firing a "alibi" round due to a weapon failure during that stage.

Also..as to mounting optics on the RAS. The RAS just isn't stable enough to mount optics on. You can mount grips, slings, and other toys on it, but as for mounting something like a Aimpoint Comp M, you would be better served by mounting it directly to the flatop or on a sleeve such as the ARMS #38.

The M16\M4 carbine is light weight, accurate, simple to maintain, easy for an avrage soldier to shoot and extremly deadly with in the 5.56 fragmintation range.

Actually the average soldier is better served with the standard M16 rather than the M4. The longer weapon is easier to fire accurately than the shorter versions. The 20 in barrels also produce more velocity than the 14.5 in barrel of the M4.

But back to the question...Will there be a replacement? Change is a certainty. As to what system we can never tell. Whatever General or Politician (Who can tell the difference sometimes?) who has the most clout will decide what the soldiers get next.

Good SHooting
RED

M4A3

September 7, 2002, 01:36 AM

You are making some strong statements supporting the M16 series rifle, specifically the M4 and the 5.56 cartridge. I'm just curious, do you have any experience...meaning Military whether peacetime or combat that would support your theories or do you make your assumptions purely based upon "civilian" experience?

B:"civilian" experience. I take what other people said, read books, mags. now and then. And use my own experience to come up with what I am saying.

So... are you saying I'm wrong? And the M16\M4 isn't as good as I think?

The RAS just isn't stable enough to mount optics on.

What do you mean by this? I have the RAS on my rifle. It seams very stable to me. It's not loose or any thing like that.

Let me bring up the Land Warrior. Now I know this is still in the development stages but thay have on the latest generation a small box mounted to the side of the RAS front grip. This small box has many differnt kinds of optics on it like thurmal* imaging and a camra to see around things basicly to keep the soldier some what out of harms way. Now if the RAS was unstable how could somone put somthing like this on the RAS and stilll be funcitional?

But like I said I have not used the M16 in combat or the desert so maby I have no idea what I am talking about.

JIH

September 7, 2002, 07:25 AM

Comparing black targets on a white background of the KD type course to what you see on a battlefield is ridiculous, are you joking?
Really...

The 600 yard targets are:

1. Not the same size as the targets you shoot at 100 yards.
2. Are relaitvely high-visibility.
3. Shot at under controllef conditions which are nothing like combat (i.e. no dirt or rain in your face [or in your action...], no one shooting back, no one screaming)

Also, making a 600 yard shot in the deserts of Iraq or fields of France is different than making a 600 yard shot in the streets of Somalia or the jungles of Viet Nam.

I'm not saying it's not nice to be able to make those long shots... just it's not a NRA match, and there have to be a lot of things that come together before you can rely on those shots.

I'm not taking anything away from the High-Power guys -- some of them are out-of-this-world fantasitic... but just being able to shoot long distances doesn't quality you for combat.

Art Eatman

September 7, 2002, 07:33 AM

The primary difference between combat use and the civilian use by folks who would get involved in a website like this is that there is a lot less mud and sand in civilian use.

There is less stumbling and falling. Civilian rifles don't get banged around nearly as much. They're not subjected to vibration, in a C-130 or a deuce-and-a-half.

There's also the "lowest common denominator" people aspect. Maintenance and such. Never underestimate the power of human stupidity.

Makes ya wanna go back to something like the old Enfield 1917.

:), Art

Correia

September 7, 2002, 12:07 PM

Easy to maintain? Easy to maintain?!?! BWAHAHAHAHAHA! :D :D

Compared to what? The Space Shuttle? Enron's financial statements?

Have you ever cleaned any other weapons besides the AR? It has got to be about the worst modern weapon to take care of, honestly I can't think of anything close to as bad. Even AR defenders admit that it is a pain to clean. Lots of tiny locking lugs, spring loaded ejector that can be jammed by shavings, direct gas impingement (which is pretty dirty), a few TINY parts that can be lost when you are stripping it out in the woods (any of you guys see a Cotter pin laying around?) And this is coming from a cake eating civillian, I can't even imagine what it would be like to try and maintain an AR is some windy desert.

I'm not a total AR basher, I do think they have their good points, but come on now. We could do better, and I ain't talking about the OICW pig either.

The M4 for general issue? Why? It is a carbine for close range use, virtually useless at longer ranges. The one thing the .223 has going for it is velocity, so chop five and a half inches off of the barrel and all of sudden there goes your speed. So at 300 yards you are hitting the guy with a glorified .22 LR. I would imagine that for regular troops you would want the 16 with its 20 inch tube. "Oh but the M4 is so light and handy!" Well whoop-de-freaking-do, so is a 10-22, don't mean I want to take it into battle.

And the average trooper don't need a RAS, nor are they going to have Land Warrior, or thermal imaging, or any other crap you can hang on the gun. Special purpose gear is exactly that, special purpose. If the one big advantage that everybody touts about the AR is its lightness and compactness, why the hell do we want to hang an extra 10 lbs. of gear off of it? The average grunt needs a gun that reliably shoots bullets to about where it is aimed, and said bullets need to kill people.

And AR magazines suck. Compare an AR mag to any other military mag. They just suck. They have no redeeming features other than weight.

And the .223 pokes a hole is soft steel plate? Ok, so this affects anything how? And it did more damage than a .357? I should certainly hope so, since the .357 is a pistol cartridge. If ANY bullet is pointy, hard, and going fast it will penetrate soft steel. Shoot it with a 30-30 soft point and it will probably splatter, and that doesn't prove a thing. Shoot it with a FMJ 7.62x39 and it will poke a hole too. (just for fun, shoot it with some 7.62x54R AP, but stack up some cinder blocks behind the plate first).

But if I am ever attacked by soft steel plate I will be sure to use my Bushmaster.

Sorry, the AR is a decent gun, but it also a flawed forty year old idea. We could do much much better.

Ain't going to happen, because that costs money, and isn't flashy enough.

M4A3

September 7, 2002, 01:29 PM

Easy to maintain? Easy to maintain?!?! BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

Well I know now that I am not going to change any body's mind here. But see, you ARE an AR basher.

Dude, I can completly dissassemble my M4 in the dark in about 30 sec to a min. And I'm shure you could too. In my opinion the ar-15 is a verry simple and easy to dissasemble rifle. Maby you just have butter fingers.

As far as cleaning the M16. It takes me about an hour. For evey thing. Every last part, I even take the plunger and spring out of the buffer tube. How is that so bad? An hour...

And AR magazines suck. Compare an AR mag to any other military mag. They just suck. They have no redeeming features other than weight.

What AR mags do you have?.... I have NEVER and I mean NEVER had any problem of ANY kind. You have nothing to back up what you're saying.

22 LR. I would imagine that for regular troops you would want the 16 with its 20 inch tube. "Oh but the M4 is so light and handy!" Well whoop-de-freaking-do, so is a 10-22, don't mean I want to take it into battle.

Dude the more I read you're post the more I get :mad:

LOOK AT THE MILITARY WOULD BALISTICS OF THE 5.56x45MM.
The 5.56 has Greater trama to flesh with in it's fragmintation range or 2500fps+ than you're 7.62!!!! GRRRRRR!!!!!!! If you would just LOOK!!!!!!

http://home.snafu.de/l.moeller/military_bullet_wound_patterns.html

If the 5.56 is such a weak peace of S**T then why is it a standard in our military? Dont you think people have run tests to see the capabilities of the 556? Also why do you think all of these other countries are mimicing or copying the idea if the 5.56. The sovet 5.45 for example.

A marksman should be able to hit a 4 foot square target at 250 Meters with just about any battle rifle. If you meant to say 2inch by 2inch target with iron sights offhand then you ought to try out for the olympics. That's some high quality shooting.

If the 5.56 is such a weak peace of S**T then why is it a standard in our military?

Don't put too much stake on the Military seal of approval. Remember we had the M1 Carbine as a duty carbine for quite some time also.

I'm not an AR basher, in fact, I like them. I own them and routinely build up ARs for family and freinds. They are a great little rifle system, but they do leave much to be desired.

Use your AR enough and sooner or later you will experience malfunctions, whether mag related or something a bit more like the carrier key becoming unstaked.

As for AR mags. They do have problems. Since the adoption of AR mags there have been a couple of changes in followers that I know of. 1 the original metal alloy follower changed to plastic in 20 and 30 rd mags. Then to the green "anti tip" type follower in the 30 rd mags. All military magazines eventually have problems. A weak poinnt in most any semi auto weapon.

Good Shooting
RED

M4A3

September 7, 2002, 06:24 PM

A marksman should be able to hit a 4 foot square target at 250 Meters with just about any battle rifle. If you meant to say 2inch by 2inch target with iron sights offhand then you ought to try out for the olympics. That's some high quality shooting.

LoL no,no,no. I put 2'X2' this means 2 foot by 2 foot. 2 inch by 2inch looks like this 2"X2"....

"=inch
'=foot
:D :D :D

ronin308

September 7, 2002, 06:29 PM

Here's my take:

The AR sucks to clean. If you've ever cleaned another system you will realize that other systems are easier. There are too many small parts that could conceivably be lost and/or damaged. The fact that the spring is located in the buttstock is just plain old silly. The direct gas issue doesn't bother me as much as it does some people. Another thing is that the sights are really high above the bore...which is annoying when you're shooting at different and unknown ranges. Yet another limitation of the system is the mags are flimsy. I don't care what you say, compare an AR mag to an AK, M1A, etc. magazine and see the difference in construction.

The 5.56 is a good cartridge provided its limitations. One limitation being that it has to be travelling somewhere above 2700 ft/sec for it to fragment (causing the magic wound channel). Given this limitation, the 5.56 is good for sub 150 yard stuff. Just because you can hit it, doesn't mean you can stop it. I've hit bowling pins at 200 yards with a .22LR, does that mean I should use it to kill moose?

The MAJOR upside is that the AR is a joy to use. The ergonomics of the rifle are excellent. The controls are right where they should be...well except maybe the charging handle. Its accurate and lends itself to long range target shooting.

Bottom line: The AR isn't the secret to tactical ninja power ;)

JIH

September 7, 2002, 08:12 PM

Remember we had the M1 Carbine as a duty carbine for quite some time also.
What's wrong with the M1 Carbine?

Anyway, I've never had that many problems cleaning an AR15. You don't need to disassemble the rifle that much to give it a good cleaning... I don't know what compells people to go all thw way with an AR15, but if you're popping out the buffer tube or removing the FCG after every session, you're over-doing it.

Clean the bore. Clean the chamber. Clean the bolt and bolt carrier group. Maybe now and then clean the buffer tube and lube the spring a little. Beyond that... put it back in the rifle and stop frigging with it.

ronin308

September 7, 2002, 09:14 PM

JIH- Don't forget to take off the wimpy extractor for a good scrubbin' ;)

Correia

September 8, 2002, 12:21 AM

I could care less if I make you angry. You've got your opinions that you have formed in all of your obvious and vast experience. Good for you.

An hour to clean? And you are talking about it being easy? If an hour to clean is considered easy I would hate to see what you would consider hard. FAL=5 second field strip. To keep it functioning in really dirty conditions you wipe the sand or mud out of the receiver with a rag, wipe off the bolt carrier, relube it and put it back together. AK=Pop the dust cover off, remove the bolt carrier, run a rag over it, relube it, reassemble.

30 seconds in the dark? In your living room? With all of the parts put down on a sheet? Going to work the same way squating on a rock in the forest? Desert? Mountains? Swamp? So where do you put your little tiny cotter pin while you are doing this?

And it probably is easier to maintain than a Winchester lever action. Now there is an apple and oranges comparison for you. Compare the AR to the other major military rifles in the world. Pick any one of them. I've been lucky enough to play with many of them, and I would be hard pressed to find one harder to maintain.

And yes, the magazines do suck. They are weak. They are easily damaged. The feed lips are easily bent. They are harder to strip and clean than an AK or FAL mag. Talk to anybody who shoots AR15s extensively, (and I'm not talking about 600 rounds total, I'm talking about 600 a week) they will have gone through many AR mags. My best friend is currently a National Guard armorer, and right now is ranked as the second best rifleman in any branch of the service in this state. He thinks that the magazines suck and are a huge weak link in the system. And this is from a person that has put more rounds down range out of a .223 than 99.9999% percent of the gun nuts out there.

Back up my statement? Do a search here on AR malfunctions. I've got about 200 people who will back up my statement. AR mags are easily damaged and once damaged will cause malfunctions.

Even people who love the AR system can admit that the most common malfunction they see is magazine related. The green followers are better than the previous design, but the mag bodies are still the same. One of the most advertised improvements of the G36 is that is has tougher magazines with superior feed lips. (and I happen to think that the G36 is an overhyped unproven glorified AR18 as well). And this is coming from a company that is trying to sell their guns to replace guns that use the NATO/STANAG AR mags. You can use an AK mag to drive tent stakes.

And that is great, you have pictures of wound channels. I never at any point in time said that the .223 was feeble. BUT the only thing it has going for it is that the bullets go really really fast. So why the heck would you want to chop the barrel down and lose your velocity quicker?

Once again, I haven't insulted the .223, I own a few, and my wife's main rifle is a .223. But it is a special purpose bullet. It is a light weight, low recoil, flat shooting cartridge. But it doesn't have magic powers. It has to obey the same laws of physics as everything else. And no matter how you trump it up, is is still just going to be a very fast .22 caliber projectile.

Sure the Russian's use the 5.45. So what? They also don't wear socks. (And I happen to think that the Russian round has tons of potential). China has the newest entry in assault rifles and they went with a 6mm round. Does this prove anything? By your reasoning it must. Of course the rest of NATO went to .223, they would have went to 45-70 if we had made them do it. Heck, NATO wanted to go with a .280 before we shoved the .308 down their throats.

And no, I don't consider myself an AR basher. I consider the AR to be a mechanical device. Like any mechanical device it is not perfect.

You have this belief that the AR system is some magic sword gift from God. It isn't. Even if your SR cost you more than any 2 of my guns put together.

I have seen just about every type of weapon malfunction, including AR15s, AKs, FALs, CETMEs, G3s, AR10s, Dragunovs, Garands, and an M1a. Any and all mechanical devices can fail. I always get a kick out of people who talk about how their gun has never jammed, all that proves is that you haven't shot it enough. Some guns jam more than others though, and I've seen plenty of AR15s malfunction, including my own.

And that is wonderful that you can shoot a 2x2 steel plate. Good for you. Come shoot in a match with me sometime, and we can watch people's guns malfunction together.

" DONT BASH AR'S "

Or what, is your world view going to be threatened? Not going to post anymore pictures of yourself violating safety rules? :)

M4A3

September 8, 2002, 01:15 AM

Correia,
At first I wasnt going to respond to this becaus I am so sick of having my works twisted around, but for you to type ALL of that you must feel strongly about you're reasoning. So I guess I will. :)

So whare do I start... An hour to completly clean every last part on the rifle. When I clean my rifle I dont just "run a rag in the chamber" brush the barrel and call it good. But what ever.

So where do you put your little tiny cotter pin while you are doing this?

In between my top 2 front teeth and bottom 2 front teeth.:D :D

Compare the AR to the other major military rifles in the world.

The only other military rifle I have personly had apart is the AK-47.
That I would have to say was a little easyer but I dont care, I like cleaning my guns.:D

And yes, the magazines do suck. etc.,etc.,etc.,

Well... I dont know about you're buddy maby he likes to chew on them :confused:

As soon as I have a peoblem with any of my AR mags then I'll agree with ya.

You have this belief that the AR system is some magic sword gift from God.

Now that is a bunch of :barf: :barf: :barf:
When did I ever say that? All I said was my Knights has not yet jamed in the first 600 rounds I have shot through it whare my DPMS has... Thats it... I minght even have said that in a differnt thread. Heck I dont even know how we got on this subject, the thread is about A replacement for the M16.

Any way, lets end this here.

Come shoot in a match with me sometime, and we can watch people's guns malfunction together.

I would love to:)

tyme

September 8, 2002, 05:24 AM

Lots of people, including those in the military, complain that the ar15/m16/m4 system is difficult to maintain (mostly that they're difficult to clean and have a less-than-ideal gas system and magazines), and people even offer suggestions on how to fix some of the problems. Why is nobody actually using the suggestions to make the rifles better? Are they waiting for a thunderbolt from the sky to inspire the military to build or decide on a completely new weapon?

STLRN

September 8, 2002, 05:29 AM

Because allot of the complaints are unfounded. There are allot of military urban legands out there, quite a few are about the M16

JIH

September 8, 2002, 08:30 AM

Even people who love the AR system can admit that the most common malfunction they see is magazine related
Definitely. I like the AR system... I think it's too bad it craps where it eats, but other than than that and the mags, it's a good system. I'm waflling on trading one for an AR180B... and, as noted in the selling forum, I'm getting out of the AR10 business (but nothing to do with the system).

I have an M4gery (ArmaLite lower, RRA upper... I ain't gonna spend Knight's money... bad customer service and I don't think they're priced well). However, the .223 relies on velocity. You're robbing it of that velocity by chopping the barrel. Yes, you're only taking away 200-275 fps, but that extra helps beyond 100 yards. There's a reason I only keep M193 in my M4gery. (and, note, it's the one that is on the AR180 chopping block if I go that route)

Why is nobody actually using the suggestions to make the rifles better? Are they waiting for a thunderbolt from the sky to inspire the military to build or decide on a completely new weapon?
They came up with the OICW...

Anyway, what weapon would you suggest?

HK G36?
I fall out with Correia... I wonder about the G36. It's an AR18. Putting more plastic on it and marking it with a big red HK doesn't make it God's gift to the myrmidon. It relies on the round that everyone is convinced is anemic (it's killed a hell of a lot of people for such an anemic round...).

It does address the mag issue, which is good. I think good magazines are more important than a good gas system. Rifles should be built around the mags... not the other way around.

M14?
Recruits whine about the weight and recoil of the AR15 and you wanna give them that?

Phase Plasma Rifle in the 40-Watt Range?
OK.

Something besides .223?
Personally, if I were gonna replace the .223, I'd replace it with something like a 6.5-08. But, you're giving up mag capacity and you're increasing barrel wear. And don't give me some BS logic like "but, if you have less rounds you'd make it count more!" Horsepuckey. They should all count, and I'd rather have 30 rounds that count than 20. If the instructors don't tell the recruits to make their shots count or the recruits don't follow the advice, that's not a rifle problem.

There is not going to be another big refinement in cartridge-and-ball technology. Until they figure out the caseless issue or they can miniaturize energy weapons, pretty much everything will be been-there, done-that. Etronx may be a good refinement, if they get the kinks worked out and can also make a cheap, rugged system that can't be defeated by simple EM-interference techniques and a guy with a machete.

There's probably not going to be another big refinement in action-technology either. We've basically got it down to delayed blowback (HKG3), op-rod/piston (M1, M14, FAL, AK, AR18... some people break out the piston and op-rod into two groups, I fail to see the benefit in doing so), and direct gas impingement (M16). The best bet for reliability is using an op-rod.

Ok, so... if you're going to design the next US rifle, go ahead and lay out your design here. And don't put "well, kinda like the AK, but like an AR, and sort of an FAL too." I don't want to hear about those other rifles. I understand them. (and, besides... it's called an FN-FNC... it's not that accurate and it has bad mags and bad firing pins)

Oh, and no bullpups. Imagine all those wonderful KBs you've seen pictures of. Imagine your face right beside that. No thanks.

DARTH 44

September 8, 2002, 09:41 AM

Another exciting AR15/M16/M4 thread.:cool:

Gents,isn`t the LR300 a redesigned and "done much better" AR?

I`m surprised MAD DOG didn`t post in this thread so far.
I love his comments about assault rifles.Experience,Expertness
and Sense of humor.
Someone`s post:
"I`ll take my ARs anyday.They run like clocks"
MAD DOG`s reply:
"Tickatickaticka SPROIOIOIOING!
(mental image of badly sprung cuckoo bird,hanging on the
end of its little tether,as the clock`s internals go every
which way)"

After I read this first time,I was laughing so hard I had to wipe
my eyes :D

Getting back to the subject,
"Why is nobody actually using the suggestions to make
the rifles better?"
Well, if the M16s are concerned I think the answer may be here
http://www.jouster.com

Regards

STLRN

September 8, 2002, 04:44 PM

too bad it craps where it eats

I love that quip, people use it all the time too bad it really doesn't mean anything. If it really did mean anything almost all malfs wouldn't be magazine related when using ball ammo in the military.

JIH

September 8, 2002, 07:27 PM

It doesn't not mean anything.

The action does get dirtier because of it. Does it get dirty enough to cause a problem? Not except under unusual circumstances which aren't going to be experienced by me or most any other person on this board. Still, the potential exists.

Whether or not that constitutes a problem in your eyes is up to you.

Jimmy Mac

September 8, 2002, 07:53 PM

My AR days are over. I learned a long time ago about their problems.

Brian Williams

September 8, 2002, 08:56 PM

I hated cleaning my M16 in the Marines...

anemic round - killed a lot of people
Gas passer - Malfed alot
never had a mag problem
liked the light weight and handling.

yes I want one. just for memories and old times
heck I want all the weapons of the jarheads

Combat; I would never want to have to depend on what I shot in the 70's m16a1. Maybe an a2, or m4

I would love to have an AR in 6mmSAW

mid way between 5.56 and 7.62

STLRN

September 8, 2002, 10:09 PM

Not really all the bolt of my M240s and M249s get just about as much carbon in them, its a function of "blow back," late obturation, unlocking and extraction. Even my personal bolt guns get carbon back in the action. The holes on the side of the bolt eject all the gas into the atmosphere, since it is hitting the bolt at some pretty good pressure it self limits carbon build up, as long as you don't shoot ammo made of reclaimed (rancid powder) shouldn't have a problem.

Turk

September 8, 2002, 11:40 PM

As many of you may know from my posts I think the M-16 is a very good bullet-launching platform especially using the M-193 ball ammo and at the close ranges as used in Vietnam it was quite effective. I personally think the new round (69gr.?) is less effective and with the M-4 barrels length it is even less. I truly believe the M-4 should not be issued to the general infantry troops.

Is there a better rifle? Probably but not good enough to replace the entire US inventory. I don’t think we need that computerized boat anchor we are currently testing.

My thoughts are we need a rifle in the same weight range as the 16 and even more important is a better round. A 6mm, 100 gr. bullet with a MV of 3200-3400 fps that is loaded in a 5.56 NATO size case. It’s hard for me to believe with our technology such a round couldn’t be devised. It would take a stronger case (steel?) and an improved propellant. A stronger bolt lock up would also have to be developed. I know some will say we have such a round like the 243 Win. But again it’s in a larger case. Less weight the round weighs the more rounds the grunt can carry.

That's my take. Oh by the way in my opinion a replacement rifle isn't an AK type rifle.

Remember to pray for our service men and women around the world fighting the war.